ANITA RAMIREZ,

1\epublir of tbe
QI:ourt
Jl!lanila
FlllST DIVISION
G.R. No. 197832
Petitioner,
Present:
-versus-
SERENO, C..J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
REYES
'
PERLAS-BERNABE,* and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
LEONEN, ** JJ.
Promulgated:
OCT
X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari
1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, petitioner Anita Ramirez (petitioner) seeks the reversal of the Court
of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dated January 31, 2011
2
and June 30, 2011
3
in
CA-G.R. CR No. 33099, denying her "Most Deferential Omnibus Motion to
Admit Notice of Appeal and Post Bond on Appeal".
Acting member per Special Order No. 1537 (Revised) dated September 6, 2013.
Acting member per Special Order No. 1545 (Revised) dated September 16, 20,3.
Rol/rl, pp. 11-23.
Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas
Peralta and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring; id. at 26-35.
3
Id. at 37-38.
II
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 197832



The Facts

On January 5, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City, Branch 97 convicted the petitioner and one Josephine Barangan
(Barangan) of the crime of Estafa in Criminal Case No. Q-01-100212.
After several re-settings, the judgment was finally promulgated on
March 25, 2009 and warrants of arrests were accordingly issued.
According to the petitioner, she failed to attend the promulgation of
judgment as she had to attend to the wake of her father.
4


Three (3) months after, or on June 6, 2009, the petitioner filed an
Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest and to Reinstate Bail
Bond, which was denied by the RTC in its Order dated October 7, 2009.
5


Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the motion to admit notice of appeal
and to post bond with the CA, asking for the reversal of the RTC Order
dated October 7, 2009. She subsequently filed her notice of appeal on
November 17, 2010.
6
The OSG, for its part, did not oppose the petitioners
belated filing of the notice of appeal but objected to her application for the
posting of a bond pending appeal.
7


In Resolution
8
dated January 31, 2011, the CA denied the omnibus
motion. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied
by the CA in Resolution
9
dated June 30, 2011. In denying the omnibus
motion, the CA ruled that the petitioner failed to file the notice of appeal
within the 15-day reglementary period prescribed by the Rules, reckoned
from the date of notice of the RTCs judgment of conviction, as she filed her
notice of appeal with the CA only on November 17, 2010. The CA opined
that as early as June 10, 2009, the petitioner was already aware of the RTC
judgment; however, she opted to file a motion to lift the warrant of arrest.
As such, the judgment of conviction against her has attained finality. The
CA also opined that since the petitioner knew she could not attend the
promulgation of judgment on March 25, 2009, she should have exerted
earnest efforts to confer with her counsel to request for its re-setting. Failing
to do so, the CA considered her absence without justifiable cause a blatant
disrespect of the judicial process.
10
Thus, the CA denied her application for
provisional liberty in view of the finality of the judgment of conviction
against her.


4
Id. at 13-14.
5
Id. at 14.
6
Id. at 68.
7
Id. at 29.
8
Id. at 26-35.
9
Id. at 37-38.
10
Id. at 33.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 197832



Hence, this petition.

The petitioner wants the Court to take note of the fact that the OSG
did not object to the belated filing of her notice of appeal with the CA. The
petitioner also attributes such lapse to her counsel whom she expected to
take care of her legal concerns. She claims that her counsel did not apprise
her of the status of the case and that it would have been unforgivable for her
not to pay her last respects to her deceased father. She also maintains that
since the CA would also be reviewing Barangans appeal, it would serve the
interest of substantial justice if the CA were to admit the petitioners appeal.
She also seeks the application of the exceptional cases where the Court
admitted a belated appeal.
11


In its Comment,
12
the OSG contends that the petitioner is bound by
the negligence of her counsel. It also manifests that while it did not object to
her appeal being heard by the CA, it is now withdrawing such position given
the petitioners continued refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the RTC
despite the CAs denial of her omnibus motion.

The petition is devoid of merit.

Section 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides for the period when an appeal from a judgment or final order in a
criminal case should be taken, viz:

Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within
fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of
the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall
be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is
filed until notice of the order overruling the motions has been served upon
the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins
to run.

In this case, the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of
Estafa was promulgated on March 25, 2009. Instead of filing a notice of
appeal within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation or notice of judgment,
the petitioner filed with the RTC a motion to lift warrant of arrest and to
reinstate bail bond three (3) months later. It was only in November 2010 or
more than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the petitioner
filed with the CA her motion to admit notice of appeal. At that point, her
judgment of conviction has already attained finality and cannot be modified
or set aside anymore in accordance with Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
13
Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible

11
Id. at 15-21.
12
Id. at 65-79.
13
See Tamayo v. People, G.R. No. 174698, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 312, 322.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 197832



error in denying the petitioners motion inasmuch as by the time the
petitioner filed the same, the appellate court was already bereft of any
jurisdiction to entertain the motion. The Court has already stressed that the
right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is
merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with
the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
14


In exceptional cases, the Court has in fact relaxed the period for
perfecting an appeal on grounds of substantial justice or when there are other
special and meritorious circumstances and issues.
15
Thus, in Remulla v.
Manlongat,
16
the Court considered the one-day late filing of the
prosecutions notice of appeal as excusable given the diligent efforts exerted
by the private prosecutor in following up its filing with the public
prosecutor.

The petitioner, however, failed to present any exceptional, special or
meritorious circumstance that will excuse the belated filing of her notice of
appeal. As correctly ruled by the CA, her assertion that her counsel on
record failed to communicate to her the status of her case is a tenuous and
implausible excuse.
17
The rule is that the omission or negligence of
counsel binds the client. This is truer if the client did not make a periodic
check on the progress of her case.
18
In this case, aside from heaving the
fault entirely on her counsel, the petitioner did not even attempt to show that
she exercised diligent efforts in making sure that she is brought up to date as
regards the status of her case or the steps being taken by her counsel in the
defense of her case.

Moreover, the petitioner should have seen to it that, at the very least,
communication was sent to the trial court to inform the presiding judge of
the demise of her father and that she could not be present during the
promulgation of judgment as she had to attend to his funeral arrangements;
or, as stated by the CA, she should have filed a motion for the resetting of
the promulgation to another date.
19
In Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso,
20
the Court
affirmed the lower courts refusal to give due course to the notice of appeal
filed by the petitioner therein, stating that all that petitioner had to do was
to file a simple notice of appeal a brief statement of its intention to
elevate the trial courts Decision to the CA. x x x Parties and their counsels

14
Dimarucot v. People, G.R. No. 183975, September 20, 2010, 630 SCRA 659, 668.
15
Remulla v. Manlongat, 484 Phil. 832, 838-839 (2004).
16
484 Phil. 832 (2004).
17
Rollo, p. 32.
18
Mapagay v. People, G.R. No. 178984, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 470, 478.
19
Rollo, p. 33.
20
433 Phil. 844 (2002).
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 197832
are presumed to be vigilant in protecting their interests and must take the
necessary remedies without and without resort to technicalities."
21
While the Court commiserates with the loss, "'the bare
invocation of 'the interest of substantial justice' is not a magic wand that
will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules."
22
Stt ict
compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the orderly and
speedy disposition of justice. The Rules must be followed; otherwise, they
will become meaningless and useless.
23
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

IENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
IJ.(J.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ESTELA M.JPERLAS-BERNABE
21
22
Associate Justice
ld. at 867.
Supra note 18.
Supra note 14, at 668-669.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
~ ' E I< T I F I C A T I () N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice